Announcement

**tniem** · August 21, 2001, 01:41

Yin, first nice to see you around. Only hope that if Moo3 is added to ACS you will stick around at least some of the time.

Second, Emerich said in one of his designer diaries that he was able to catch up with whatever job he was working on simply because he had no new emails over a couple of days. Say that again. He reads them all and replies to them all and he is supposed to be the head designer or whatever.

But I have a question about that. Can he actually code? I mean he was the reviewer for some gaming magazine and writes strategy guides. Can he actually make the game? Or is he just the guy leading the project and doing PR?

The other thing I would just like to add is that MoO3 is not being done by the same guys that did the original two. That sets the stage more for a non-conservative sequel. I mean if I was making Civ III there would be a lot of things that I thought up over the years that I think would be cool to have. Meanwhile the guys doing Civ III have been making this same game every couple of years. Isn't there a chance that they are both sick of it and at the end of what they really think they can add?

Oh and Yin are you posting over at the main site? I tried but I found their boards impossible for me to follow the flow of information. I prefer the standard boards (ACS) or the nested (Slashdot) to whatever they are using over there at Quicksilver. Still I wish I could get involved in some way.

**Pythagoras** · August 21, 2001, 02:38

Re: Quick MOO3 E-Mail from Alan Emrich (one of the primary designers)

Originally posted by yin26
I sent Alan a nice e-mail last week commending him and the team for seeming to 1) really seek out interaction with the public as they design the game and 2) push the envelope in exciting ways. He wrote back a quick mail. Nothing amazing here or anything, but still encouraging.

1) "Go all the way": Sure, it may backfire. But NOT going after a conservative MOO3 gives them a hell of a lot of credit in my book, and they just might help re-invent elements of the genre.

2) "Ivy Tower Designer": This was a comment made in response to a part of my e-mail in which I expressed regret that Civ3's development wasn't made more public. Heck, in case you don't know, the MOO3 team even periodically posts up a certain game screen and challenges the public to find things wrong or things that could be done better. Wow.

I think "not being conservative" can be dangerous. Havent we seen what "reinventing" means with CTP 1&2? Then again MOO2 was rather radically different from MOO1, but then again they were done by the same team. I smell "publicity release." IE- old classic gets sucky redo to sell titles via name recognition.

Pardon my cynicism, but just the fact they have to mention that there publisher said they could "go all the way" is suspcious. Does Firaxis have to say this? Also I need not mention their site hasnt really been 100% functional as of a week ago. Sorry, as much as I like MOO, I smell a rat.

**yin26** · August 21, 2001, 02:57

tniem,

Thanks for the kind words. I'm sure that as long as you and a few others at the very least whom I respect stay around here to discuss MOO3, I'll be here, too. As you said, the boards over on the official site make my head hurt. I can't stand them.

You are right that there are a number of reasons why MOO3 might more readily 'break the mold' than will Civ 3. However, if Firaxis is out of ideas, we gave them millions. Frankly, they are doing the conservative game because they can put in 10% of the work at 0% risk and make a lot of money...all while making tons of money from having TWO games released on top of each other. Don't get me wrong. I fully understand the money motive / necessity. But that's a dangerous game they are playing themselves...

Also, MOO3 is some ways HAS to break the mold and get a lot of positive buzz going if it wants to take on bigger names like Civ 3. But in the end, I think that 'underdog' mentality has been sorely lost at Firaxis as they see Civ 3 merely as a cash cow that can sell .25 mill or .5 mill rather quickly even in conservative form. Who knows? They might find the market far more jaded than they had hoped...

As for Alan's coding skills, my "out of the blue" feeling is he is a concept / PR guy and not a coder. I could be wrong. But often times, it's the concept/PR guy and NOT the programmers who make all the difference anyway.

**yin26** · August 21, 2001, 03:06

Pythagoras:

I'll be the first to admit that MOO3 might end up just another over-hyped coffee coaster when all is said and done. They could have the worst of all worlds: Enough new features to alienate old fans but nothing great enough to attract new ones...or just features that don't work as advertised in the first place that piss everybody off. Conversely, Civ 3 might really keep all that was great about previous Civs and offer enough well-done features to make the whole thing feel new and challenging yet familiar.

Firaxis did an outstanding job going against the grain with Gettysburg. I can't really blame them for their approach on Civ 3, though it is awfully disappointing to me in many ways...but I'm the minority, for sure.

**Pythagoras** · August 21, 2001, 03:55

Originally posted by yin26
Pythagoras:

I'll be the first to admit that MOO3 might end up just another over-hyped coffee coaster when all is said and done. They could have the worst of all worlds: Enough new features to alienate old fans but nothing great enough to attract new ones...or just features that don't work as advertised in the first place that piss everybody off. Conversely, Civ 3 might really keep all that was great about previous Civs and offer enough well-done features to make the whole thing feel new and challenging yet familiar.

Firaxis did an outstanding job going against the grain with Gettysburg. I can't really blame them for their approach on Civ 3, though it is awfully disappointing to me in many ways...but I'm the minority, for sure.

I think it comes down to what we (whether we know it or not) require in a sequel. We of course want game graphics/interface that knock the socks off of the previous graphics/interface. Then after that we get a moderate amount of gameplay improvements.

Graphics are like the first layer. If you sold Civ 3 with Civ 2's graphics you probably wouldnt "ooh and aah" the people who bought the past game. This is paramount, with all the sequeling out there ussually the thing that sells it is the screenshots, and how those screenshots compare to the earlier game(s). The games interface plays into this to sell the game both conciously and subconciously with its aestetic and usability value. How smooth does it look, feel, and "move/work." I dont know anything honestly, but I assume this takes up a good deal of time with all the 3d modeling and usability testing. Creating a good, better, pretty shell and testing it takes even more time when you take into acount all the diferences in individual computers and there perfomance when straining their varrying capabilitys.

Once we get a nice new shell to play our game, we ussually demand at least a moderate amount of gameplay additions and few alterations. Additions are fine - new features are ussually always welcome. For instance the cultural system in Civ 3 doesnt alter a whole lot. It might influence and work with the older pillars of civ gameplay, but none of those pillars are knocked down, only newer ones added. Designers who dont want to rock the boat are into building on what they previously had, and this is fine if the past games "pillars" were solid. Alterations are typically bad. Here designers run a large risk of alienating fans, and even the suggestion of big alterations can rock the boat of fan support and turn a questioning eye towards the developer. Look how simply having 16 civs is hurting civ 3. Fans want to play civ X that they loved to death in civ 2. This minor (I think) alteration has got some up in arms demanding the missing 8 back. Alterations also run the risk of creating overall faulty gameplay by mixing and mashing old and new concepts to create an overall feel of messiness and "unsuredness" in how the game should work.

Another earlier unmentioned factor is AI. I hear that AI scripting is a tedious, time consuming task, and Ive noticed that AI hardly improves much, it only takes advantage of gameplay additions. Civ 2 actually had the AI using (gasp) diplomats & spies, and SMAC (of course) will react to your unit designs. Then they cheat to keep you in check and keep you wondering without unsubstantiated proof - "Is the AI good or is the AI cheating?"

So thats my 5 cents on sequels. By definition you cant expect revolutionary new games to come from sequels. Look for those games in the Startopias, the Age of Wonders, the Europa Universaliss, Gettysburgs etc. All of which dont have numbers after there names.

In terms of MOO:
Can we really say that MOO2 was a sequel to MOO1, or a mixture of MOO and civ gameplay concepts with some extras thrown on? People appeared in MOO2 that could rebel, fall into civil disorder, the research system became more civish in MOO2, the game expanded on the "planet level" in ways that civ had done in the "city level" of management. So in terms of MOO3, its really still up in the air. "Who knows" is the best anyone can say, but for it to come out of nowhere all the sudden with a different team is fairly suspicous. I suppose its just a wait and see kinda thing though.

**Father Beast** · August 21, 2001, 09:24

Yin,

first - Yeah, I knew you weren't really gone. you're just not being as active. you're too addicted to quit.

now - MOO and its sequel are a perfect example of just how a sequel can break a game. I loved MOO. I still play it. but when I finally found MOO2 available, I eagerly installed it and... couldn't bring myself to finish a game.

Like I've said elsewhere, it's like they took the original game and turned it into the moojr FW mod for civ2.

A lot of the fantastic things about MOO were gotten rid of. the main problem is, it wasn't the same gameplay anymore. I couldn't stand it.

Now, I applaud the moo3 team for pushing the envelope. if they can make it a better game then moo2, more power to them. I don't think they can break it anymore. (wait, they're doing that imperial focus thing, guess I was wrong) making MOO3 a new game entirely could only help.

as compared to civ and its sequel. civ2 expanded the game, but kept the same basic gameplay. I also can't help but notice that AOE2 did the same thing. almost like expansion packs instead of new games.

why does this work? because we love the game of civ. we got bored a bit with the current limitations on the game, but we don't want to throw out the whole paradigm. We just want expansion and improvement.

I've heard you complain about civ3 being a "conservative sequel", which is what civ2 was far more than civ3. almost nothing was changed from civ1 to civ2. ICS was still the gamers hog, with almost nothing to change it.

if you want a new game, then make a new game. they're doing some of that in alt civs. but if you're making a sequel to a classic, don't break it in the name of innovation, like they did with MOO2. I uninstalled MOO2 and still lay MOO.

**Garth Vader** · August 21, 2001, 11:57

Interesting. I played MOO2 as much, probably more than MOO. I have a list of complaints about it as long as my table, but it was still the most engrossing game I played.

While I didn't play Civ2 nearly as much as Civ because it felt like the same game to me.

I am pleased that Moo3 is going to be different, but I know already that there are going to be a number of things that I won't like. I just hope they aren't game breakers.

**Pythagoras** · August 21, 2001, 14:37

Originally posted by Father Beast
Yin,

first - Yeah, I knew you weren't really gone. you're just not being as active. you're too addicted to quit.

now - MOO and its sequel are a perfect example of just how a sequel can break a game. I loved MOO. I still play it. but when I finally found MOO2 available, I eagerly installed it and... couldn't bring myself to finish a game.

Like I've said elsewhere, it's like they took the original game and turned it into the moojr FW mod for civ2.

A lot of the fantastic things about MOO were gotten rid of. the main problem is, it wasn't the same gameplay anymore. I couldn't stand it.

Now, I applaud the moo3 team for pushing the envelope. if they can make it a better game then moo2, more power to them. I don't think they can break it anymore. (wait, they're doing that imperial focus thing, guess I was wrong) making MOO3 a new game entirely could only help.

as compared to civ and its sequel. civ2 expanded the game, but kept the same basic gameplay. I also can't help but notice that AOE2 did the same thing. almost like expansion packs instead of new games.

why does this work? because we love the game of civ. we got bored a bit with the current limitations on the game, but we don't want to throw out the whole paradigm. We just want expansion and improvement.

I've heard you complain about civ3 being a "conservative sequel", which is what civ2 was far more than civ3. almost nothing was changed from civ1 to civ2. ICS was still the gamers hog, with almost nothing to change it.

if you want a new game, then make a new game. they're doing some of that in alt civs. but if you're making a sequel to a classic, don't break it in the name of innovation, like they did with MOO2. I uninstalled MOO2 and still lay MOO.

Were civ2, SMAC, civ3, and AoE2 conservative sequels with MOO2 a normalsequel or was MOO2 an exception to the sequel rule by being reinventive? I think it was the latter, AoE2, civ2, SMAC, and civ3 are probably what you should expect from a sequel. I mean they wouldnt be making a sequel if they couldnt sell the game on name and gameplay recognition. Also an expansion pack ussually barely expands the rules if at all, and an expansion pack wont have a new graphics set/engine.

**tniem** · August 21, 2001, 15:47

What I know from my own experience as that I grew tired of Civ II fast. I played long enough to get the hang of it and get the new features so I could beat Deity. And that was pretty much it.

After playing Civ I for almost five years, Civ II lasted maybe 15 full games. That is still a lot compared to most games I have played but certainly does not compete to the impact Civ I had on me.

The same happened with the ctp series and SMAC. I enjoyed many of their new features that were added. Unit Workshops, Public Works, borders, Planetary Council, ctp city happiness, and all the rest really added to the game. But as soon as I got the hang of them and played a few games of MP against some friends I was through with them. I really lost interest fast. (SMAC took a little longer because I had to understand the whole Sci-Fi aspect but as soon as I got the tech tree - same thing) I have wasted money on the civ series in the reincarnations of Civ I, II, MPG, FW, CtP, SMAC, and SMACX. The whole time I have been looking to have the same amount of joy as the first time that I won on Emperor in Civ I.

I worry that since Civ III is a conservative sequel that I will reject it after only playing for a few weeks. So I will buy it and will post about it, especially after being on poly for over a year, but I worry that I will see the same game that I have overplayed and not being that enthusiastic about it.

MOO3 on the other hand, looks good. Whether they can pull it off or not is a huge issue. But you have to give them credit for trying.

And no one answered me before, so I will ask again: Does Allan Emerich actually code the game or is he just a figure head?

**yin26** · August 21, 2001, 21:17

Yes, that's EXACTLY how I feel as well. It used to be I'd worry about wasting money. Now I have money but very little time. And with so many choices out there, to go back to something I pretty much already played before is NOT a good use of my time. It's gonna be interesting this Civ 3 - MOO 3 thing.

As for Alan, I gave it a shot:

As for Alan's coding skills, my "out of the blue" feeling is he is a concept / PR guy and not a coder. I could be wrong. But often times, it's the concept/PR guy and NOT the programmers who make all the difference anyway.

**Urban Ranger** · August 22, 2001, 00:15

I agree with Father Beast.

I have started playing MoO again. Yes it's graphics are outdated and the interface can really use some updating, it has a nice elegance that isn't not found in MoO 2.

Pros: multiple planets per system, ability to build outposts, even bigger ships, more defense intallations, ship upgrades

Cons: leaders (too MoM-like), civ type research, weaker planetary defenses, fewer tech advances, smaller universe, generic colony ship, need for transport ships and freighter fleets

MoO 3 would have been better it it were more like MoO instead of the sequel.

**Comrade Tribune** · August 22, 2001, 15:34

Originally posted by yin26

As for Alan's coding skills, my "out of the blue" feeling is he is a concept / PR guy and not a coder. I could be wrong. But often times, it's the concept/PR guy and NOT the programmers who make all the difference anyway.

Totally agreed. Many people can code these days, but there are precious few good game designers. Have You seen this site already? Alan Emrich did a brilliant WWII boardgame. He worked five years on this one, meaning he is a fanatic about perfection.

http://www.quicksilver.com/~aemrich/tk-hp.htm

Also, Emrich does reasonably answer questions. Which compares well to certain people who say: "Gee; check our site daily; who knows? Some day You might find some real information there. Or maybe not."

**Urban Ranger** · August 22, 2001, 23:27

The flipside is also true: there are many game designers out there but a good programmer is hard to find

**Pythagoras** · August 24, 2001, 21:02

One of my big beefs with MOO-2 is the unbalanced command point system. I never found any point in building small ships. I like command pts, but the cp price should go up exponentially with ship size, so that

1- smallest (I dont even remember the name, corvette?)
2
4
8
16...
32 - darkstar

Announcement

Quick MOO3 E-Mail from Alan Emrich (one of the primary designers)

Quick MOO3 E-Mail from Alan Emrich (one of the primary designers)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment